Senior US aerospace and defence executives are pressing the Bush administration to rescind its decision to deny Britain, America's loyal ally, access to top-secret stealth technology in the new F-35, the joint strike fighter that is the world's costliest aircraft.

Last week Lord Drayson, the British defence procurement minister, warned senators Britain would pull out of the $250bn (£140bn) project unless the White House and Pentagon agreed to technology transfers that would enable Britain to retain control over its military assets and adapt the fighter to its own needs.

Britain is contributing $2bn to the project and has opted to buy 150 fighters out of the potential 2,600 on order for the US air force, navy and marines. But ministers are annoyed that President George Bush has cancelled plans for a second engine - to be jointly built by Rolls-Royce and GE - alongside one being developed by Pratt & Whitney. The F-35, worth a potential $400bn when export orders are included, would be built by BAE Systems in Britain and other firms, including Finmeccanica, in Italy, Holland, Turkey, Canada, Australia, Denmark and Norway. BAE would get 20% of the work in Britain.

Lord Drayson told the Senate armed services committee: "Without the technology transfer to give us the confidence to deliver an aircraft fit to fight on our terms, we will not be able to buy these aircraft." He is the latest in a string of ministers, including Tony Blair, to demand a quid pro quo from the Americans for the support the UK has given the Bush administration over Iraq, Afghanistan and other military campaigns.

President Bush's draft 2007 budget excludes a second engine for the F-35, which will save the hard-pressed Pentagon budget about $1.8bn. But GE and Rolls-Royce executives told the senators Pratt & Whitney would benefit from a windfall of up to $82bn over the F-35's 30-year life if it alone built the engine. Britain is being denied access to the fighter's stealth technology under US rules governing non-proliferation of weapons that could end up in terrorist hands. In an effort to resolve the growing crisis in US-British relations, American executives have told the White House to agree to a compromise.

One told a recent conference that Nato could provide an inspectorate to monitor any transfer of technology to countries friendly to the US while another said the body should engage in a permanent dialogue on the issue. A senior European executive suggested that the EU should seize the initiative, appointing a single official to negotiate with the US, because Britain's individual approach had failed.

They pointed out that cooperation and inter-operability of weapons systems were vital in modern armed conflicts. But others argued that countries such as Britain would have to contribute their own innovative technology in order to convince the Americans the transfer was worthwhile.

Lockheed Martin, the US defence contractor in charge of the F-35 project, is running three tests to see how much, if any, of the stealth technology can be transferred. Executives insist Britain is exaggerating the scale of the problem as the planes, due to come into service in 2012, may not be required until 2014 at the earliest and Britain does not yet know what scale of technology it requires.

Lord Drayson has made technology transfer crucial to his plans to implement the government's new defence industrial strategy, which is designed to ensure Britain retains the manufacturing capability it needs for national security. "I'm a man in a hurry with this. I'm in post to reform and improve and I sense a real opportunity to do that, a real momentum," he told the Guardian. Amid continuing doubts about the viability of the £6bn aircraft carriers project, he made plain he favours the restructuring of Britain's warship sector through mergers.